Although embodiments of methods and apparatuses of the present invention would be useful for any vehicle, for the sake of brevity a grocery cart application will be emphasized throughout.
Grocery carts and the like are very commonly supplied by store owners for retail store patrons. The patrons typically use the carts while in the store and may also use the carts to transport the purchased goods from the stores to the parking areas and ultimately to their automobiles.
This benefit for the store patrons presents a longstanding problem for the store owners, however: the relatively expensive carts are very often damaged or not returned to the store or to another central location in the parking area. Oftentimes the problem results simply from the negligence of the patrons, but it is well-known that carts are often "borrowed" for subsequent use and occasionally carts are stolen for resale purposes. In any event, the loss of carts is problematical for the store owner. When carts are stolen, fewer carts are available for the patrons, and if the carts are replaced this results in a drain on the store owner's income. In fact, it is presently estimated that the average life of a grocery cart is approximately three years and even less in high crime areas. The magnitude of the problem becomes clear when it is realized that grocery carts can cost in excess of $100.
It is perceived that one possible solution to the aforementioned problem is to provide a central location or several locations where the carts can be returned. If a plurality of cart return stations are provided by the store owner, preferably in the parking area, it is thought that the carts would be more likely returned.
Even more effective than the simple return system outlined above is an incentive system. In this type of scheme a token is dispensed to the individual who returns the cart to provide incentive for prompt return of the carts. Such a token might be a small monetary sum or a ticket or coupon useful in the store supplying the cart return apparatus and the carts. Even more preferred would be a device that provides incentive for people to return carts to the very store from which the carts were derived. This is particularly a problem in commercial areas where there are many retail stores and many of the stores supply carts that are similar in nature to one another. The store owners naturally desire to have their carts returned to their own store.
Consequently, a preferred cart return apparatus would include means for issuing an incentive to the individual who returns a cart to the appropriate store's return apparatus. A preferred apparatus would be fairly simple in construction and be very rugged to minimize maintenance problems and resultant down time. An incentive dispenser should not operate unless a cart is genuinely returned. That is, the dispensing system should be tamper-proof to a significant degree.
A preferred apparatus and method for encouraging the return of grocery carts and the like is further readily adaptable to presently-existing carts. That is, retrofitting of carts should be fairly simple and straightforward. Any parts that are mounted to grocery carts should not interfere with the convenient use of the carts and should be fairly inexpensive.
A preferred apparatus and method should also include means for preventing removal of the cart without the store owner's consent. This prevents repeated "returns" of a single cart by a single party for an accumulated sum of tokens or incentives.
Finally, a preferred apparatus should offer little resistance to pushing the cart into the apparatus so that patrons can easily return the carts in return for tokens.
The prior art devices do not possess all of the preferred characteristics itemized above. One cart return device, manufactured by Smarte Carte, Inc. of White Bear Lake, Minn., generally performs quite satisfactorily, possessing most of the preferred characteristics stated above. In the Smarte Carte device, the rear wheels of a fairly standard grocery cart are modified to extend outwardly from the cart frame. The rear wheels are thus capturable by a cart return device. A problem exists, however, due to the outward extension of the modified wheels: the extended wheels sometimes interfere with the grocery shopping process, e.g., two carts, each supplied with the extended wheel base, interfering with one another as they attempt to simultaneously negotiate a narrow aisle, with a resultant inconvenience to store patrons.
U.S. Pat. No. 3,165,189, issued to R. Easterday, discloses another cart return apparatus. Easterday teaches a key connected to a cart frame, the key engaging a lock apparatus as the cart is moved from a starting point to an ending point. If the key is of a proper configuration, the key can pass through the lock apparatus and the passage of the key through the lock mechanism causes the lock mechanism to dispense a token.
The concept of a key mountable on a standard grocery cart is generally laudable, but Easterday and similar devices suffer from several drawbacks. The key in Easterday is a fairly simple disk mounted in cantilever fashion, extending laterally from the grocery cart frame. The key is thus prone to interfere with the shopping process due to problems which can occur due to the limited space in a typical grocery store. Such problems were discussed above with reference to the Smarte Carte device, though in the Smarte Carte device it is the extended wheels that are somewhat problematical.
The key in Easterday, a simple disk, would be fairly easily copied by someone who wishes to simulate the return of a cart in repeated fashion to amass a large sum of tokens.
Furthermore, since the key in Easterday and like devices is mounted on one side of the grocery cart frame, it is perceived that a torque is generated on the grocery cart frame as the key is pushed through the lock apparatus, causing binding of cart wheels in the channels that guide and support the cart wheels.
Additionally, the type of cart return device represented by Easterday requires that the grocery cart wheels be aligned and in good condition so that they can traverse the fairly narrow cart wheel channels that guide the cart and key through the apparatus. If a wheel is damaged so that it will not easily follow the narrow wheel channels or the wheels are misaligned, it is perceived that it may be difficult or impossible to return the cart for a token.
Still further, Easterday teaches that in order to prevent one store's carts from being returned to another store's cart return mechanism, the return mechanisms should be mounted at various heights and the keys mounted on the carts at corresponding various heights. Several problems may be caused by such a system, including problems caused when two locking mechanisms are mounted at substantially the same height. Patrons may be able to return carts to the wrong stores in such a situation, or perhaps jam the key disks in the lock mechanisms when trying to do so.
The present invention is directed to the problems discussed above. The cart return apparatus of the present invention is very rugged and includes superior means for discriminating between carts from various stores. A key preferably having a fairly complex shape is preferably centrally mounted to the cart frame between the front wheels of a typical grocery cart. The complex shape of the key can be easily varied in a given commercial area to prevent the crisscrossing of carts between and among stores. The preferably central location of the key minimizes binding of the carts in the return mechanism and lessens the risk of harming the store, its contents or patrons. Likewise, damage to the key itself is minimized due to the placement of the key between the front wheels of the cart. The cart frame acts to protect the key, thus extending the useful life of the key.
In a preferred embodiment of the invention, only the cart key engages a guide mechanism so that misaligned or broken wheels will not significantly hinder the return of a cart and the dispensing of a token as a reward.
Furthermore, a cart return mechanism according to the present invention is essentially tamper-proof. Preferably, the key must pass through two doors in order to activate the token dispensing system. In one embodiment, a template having an opening roughly conforming to the shape of the key is mounted in front of the first door. Once the key passes through the first door, it preferably comes into contact with a depth gauge which, like the template mentioned above, determines whether the key is "valid" and whether a token should be dispensed. In order for the key to open the second door, the first door must be closed. Thus, a slender tool cannot readily be pushed through the first door and through the second door since the second door is held closed by enabling means when the first door is held open.
A preferred embodiment of the invention also preferably includes rugged means for preventing the key from being reversed through the locking mechanism to preclude multiple-token rewards for the return of a single cart.
Finally, the complexity of the key of the present invention makes it difficult to copy and thus reduces spurious token loss.